Post by skyhawkdon on Jun 11, 2016 17:36:09 GMT 12
Interesting article and it sums up NZ's hand wringing and inability to state (truthfully) the real strategic issues facing the Asia/Pacific region. We have been a joke in the eyes of Australia since 2001 and this White Paper does nothing to change that perception.
Australia's white paper is a document with a fundamentally different purpose than ours. In the next context, the white paper is the 'head document,' with details flowing through subordinate documents like the capability plans, capital investment plans, etc. That is why you won't see specific types of equipment named and schedules published. Australia's white paper is a shopping list. They don't publish the same level of subordinate documents NZ does.
There is also a profound level of arrogance from parts of the Australian commentariat who expect New Zealand to follow Australia's lead to the letter. In particular they struggle with NZ's focus on the Pacific, often ignoring the fact that New Zealand has much deeper connections to the Pacific States than Australia does, and they're much closer to us economically and socially. Jennings raising PNG is an example of that. We have almost zero connection with PNG, whereas Australia has an unstable country sitting of its northern border. Chalk and cheese. Of course it isn't a priority for NZ.
NZ of course has a much higher ability to use soft power in the Pacific to influence than Australia does. In the context of emerging major power rivalries in the Pacific that counts for something.
Post by skyhawkdon on Jun 13, 2016 17:30:49 GMT 12
There have been some "interesting" opinion pieces in the media over the last couple of days. Some of the uneducated comments on the articles are interesting to say the least! You can probably guess who I am!
I hope any MAD upgrade is primarily solid state. I spent many hours tweaking the old system, getting 24v motors to run at 2v, polishing 2mm copper berylium ball bearings and balancing 800mm long, 3mm dia shafts. But we did have the best mad serviceability of any operator.
Intelligent discussion and debate on Defense issues in NZ is all but impossible in the general media.
My biggest issue with the way NZ conducts it's defense is that we have claimed a HUGE EEC but are pretty lax at defending it. I'd doubt we even have proper surveillance of all of it. I think we as a country need to sit down and think long and hard about our area of influence and decide whether we want to rethink (i.e. downsize) those boundaries or start properly funding the services we task with looking after it.
Last Edit: Jun 15, 2016 8:52:23 GMT 12 by flyinkiwi
"The thing about quotes from the internet is that it's very hard to verify their authenticity." - Winston Churchill
I see they talk about the acoustics being twice as good or better than the P3C, that raises the question have subs got twice as quiet in the same time frame (is this the classic, the seats have got 2" wider but the asses are now 3" wider).
P.S. Interesting, P-8A was operating out of Auckland International and not Whenupai, maybe something to do with not getting 5 SQN folks hopes up too much?
Or Whenuapai too short to depart with enough fuel to get to Nadi, plus plenty of B737 support infrastructure at AKL, plus a bunch of people that you are showing it too at flying up from Wellington on AirNZ?
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 18, 2016 16:01:45 GMT 12
Is Whenuapai's runway seriously too short for the _P-8 to take off from with a full fuel load? If that's the case it's not the right type for us, unless they are going to extend the runway or move the squadron (two unlikely scenarios).
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 18, 2016 16:32:15 GMT 12
I've never heard of a limitation on either Boeing. The No. 40 Squadron Boeings regularly depart fully laden from Whenuapai to fly around the world, so would be interested to hear this confirmed one way or another.
I found refs to B727-100 needing 2,700m, and B757-200 needing 1,710m, so I was probably remembering a benefit of the B757 being not requiring the hop to AKL for long heavy trips.
Same site gave 2,070m for standard B737-800 or B737-900, the P-8 is based on a B737-800 with the wings from the longer B737-900. I wouldn't be surprised if military equipment, possibly more fuel capacity than the airliners, and a desire to operate in more varied conditions increased the required length.
RAAF Edinburgh (P-3/P-8 base near Adelaide) is 2,560m, RAAF Darwin 3,354m, RAAF Townsville 2,438m, RAAF Pearce (Perth) 2,439m.